• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Of Liberty and Justice in America.

No Libertarians have come to defend their ideological choice? Some might call that a telling reveal. Com'on. Let's debate the notion that greater Liberty creates greater justice.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
No Libertarians have come to defend their ideological choice? Some might call that a telling reveal. Com'on. Let's debate the notion that greater Liberty creates greater justice.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Maybe it's just that Libertarians are busy changing the world, and thus have no time to debate you.
 
Maybe it's just that Libertarians are busy changing the world, and thus have no time to debate you.

nvflash:

Perhaps you're right about some libertarians, but I doubt they're all too busy to explain their stances. Time will tell.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
No Libertarians have come to defend their ideological choice? Some might call that a telling reveal. Com'on. Let's debate the notion that greater Liberty creates greater justice.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Libertarianism should be back in fashion once the current strain of populism runs its course
 
Libertarianism should be back in fashion once the current strain of populism runs its course
Libertarianism has always been outside the mainstream in the US, that's not to say it hasn't had its effects, it's just never been able to politically stand on its own as a party on the Federal level, outside of the GOP.
 
Libertarianism has always been outside the mainstream in the US, that's not to say it hasn't had its effects, it's just never been able to politically stand on its own as a party on the Federal level, outside of the GOP.

nvflash:

Good point, but will the possible implosion of the Republican Party give Libertarianism a chance to come up the middle, especially if the Democrats go through a simultaneous schism?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Libertarianism should be back in fashion once the current strain of populism runs its course

tacomancer:

Perhaps, but would that be a good thing?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
tacomancer:

Perhaps, but would that be a good thing?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Libertarians tend to be wrong about pretty much everything, but at least they tend not to be violent
 
Listen to this Thom Hartmann "The Hidden History of Monopolies" interview. The right-libertarian ultrawealthy have been controlling much of America, the USG, and probably much of the world for decades, and it's getting worse.


FEATURING THOM HARTMANN – The American economy today is utterly dominated by massive companies that have monopolies on what we eat, wear, drive, bank, shop, and consume. When recessions hit in the modern era, our tax dollars bail out corporations that we are told are “too-big-to-fail.”

My next guest has written a powerful book about corporate monopolies in which he explains, “How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream.”
 
Listen to this Thom Hartmann "The Hidden History of Monopolies" interview. The right-libertarian ultrawealthy have been controlling much of America, the USG, and probably much of the world for decades, and it's getting worse.


Antiwar:

Yeah, I read Hartmann's book and several others of his in past years.

I'll give the podcast a listen on Sunday morning. Thank you for posting it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
I feel like I'm retyping things I've said too many times before, but.....

1.

It's hard to be specific because of just how varied the views are of people who claim to be libertarian. On the soft end, maybe they mostly just want government to stop telling them what they can put in or do with their bodies. On the extreme end, it's virtually indistinguishable from anarchism.

When you look a the party platform, some ideas would be national suicide. Like the national tax policy:
No taxes, only voluntary donations to the federal government. Seriously. They wrote that. Just read it. So to the extent that kind of thinking is libertarianism, I would say we need as little of it as possible. Put that in law and you would see the immediate collapse of the federal government and everything related to it (like the dollar). Global catastrophe, but necessarily worse for those on the land...​

Best thing you can say about that is that it probably wouldn't ever pass congress. You'll have to forgive me if I do not find that to be the most compelling argument in favor of an ideology. There other platform statements are similarly unwise.




On a local scale, here's what happens when you put various 'big L Libertarianism' ideas into practice:



Roads falling apart, and basically a bear invasion because that's what you get when you have a town of people who get rid of their trash however they damn please without mean old government telling them what to do with it.

So as for specific policies and proposals, I haven't seen much of anything that makes me think libertarianism is a good idea. In practice, it seems to lead to societal failure. And the proposals that have never been put into practice seem to be dangerously naive.
I'm with you. I think most people who claim to be a libertarian are one step away from anarchists. I read the story about the bear invasion someplace else, very funny.
 
The cornerstone of libertarianism is the concept that greater liberty produces greater justice.

I’m going to say “false”. I think the belief is greater liberty generally produces greater happiness.

I don’t know that any two people will agree on what “justice” is.
 
I’m going to say “false”. I think the belief is greater liberty generally produces greater happiness.

I don’t know that any two people will agree on what “justice” is.

diz:

Good point but what shall we define as "happiness"? Agreement on "happiness" is likely just as nebulous as "justice" is. I suspect that just as the argument went for greater liberty being a double-edged sword with respect to justice, so an argument for double-edged liberty and happiness can be made. If achieving a quantum of my own happiness distresses and reduces the happiness of fifty other citizens, then my liberty to pursue my happiness will reduce net happiness across the board. The result of greater liberty can lead to less aggregate happiness in many situations.

Now if you define "happiness" as "property", as your founding fathers did, then I concede you may have a point. But that point leads to oligopoly, monopoly, income and wealth polarisation, entrenched elites, oligarchy, aristocracy and finally caste, none of which are good for a constitutional republic with a legitimising institution of representative democracy.

I thank you for your post and invite you to expand upon it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
diz:

Good point but what shall we define as "happiness"? Agreement on "happiness" is likely just as nebulous as "justice" is. I suspect that just as the argument went for greater liberty being a double-edged sword with respect to justice, so an argument for double-edged liberty and happiness can be made. If achieving a quantum of my own happiness distresses and reduces the happiness of fifty other citizens, then my liberty to pursue my happiness will reduce net happiness across the board. The result of greater liberty can lead to less aggregate happiness in many situations.

Now if you define "happiness" as "property", as your founding fathers did, then I concede you may have a point. But that point leads to oligopoly, monopoly, income and wealth polarisation, entrenched elites, oligarchy, aristocracy and finally caste, none of which are good for a constitutional republic with a legitimising institution of representative democracy.

I thank you for your post and invite you to expand upon it.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Happiness in the sense of “utility” or “well-being”. Generally I’d say the view is people are happier when their preferences are met, with preferences being revealed by behavior.

Like, if I always pick chocolate ice cream it shows I prefer it to vanilla. Others may pick vanilla. Or not pick ice cream at all. Preferences vary. This is a pretty key thing to always have in mind. I benefit from being free to pursue my preferences. I do not benefit when other’s preferences are forced on me.

You are correct that sometimes one individual's happiness may conflict with another’s. Most libertarians believe in rules that govern these situations. For example, you may derive great happiness from the money in my wallet, but libertarians would generally argue that the world will be happier if we clearly define the money in my wallet as mine and you may not have take it without my consent. (Libertarians are not unique in this regard...)

So, there are ways I am allowed to make you unhappy. I can make you unhappy by using the money in my wallet to buy myself chocolate ice cream even if it pisses you off. Your unhappiness with respect to my money doesn’t necessarily matter. Because overall the world will be happier if we arrange our rules that way. The average person will be able to achieve more of their preferences. Now, of course, one of the things I am free to do with my money is give it to you to make you happy. If this makes me happy. Or maybe you provide some good or perform some service that makes me happy to get some of it.

So, I wouldn’t go as far as saying “property” is “happiness”, but if you want some of my property is is beholden on you to make me happy enough to get it. And vice-versa.
 
What do others think about the role of libertarianism in the Modern American Political-Economy and Society?

I won't repeat my long criticisms of Libertarianism here, but suffice it to say among other flaws, they don't understand, largely, the basic idea of 'the public good' from coordinated activities with compulsory taxes much; they seem to think 'liberty' is a thousand people standing in a field without water or water for profit for the rich, and the people having water from a tax-funded water system is tyranny.
 
Happiness in the sense of “utility” or “well-being”. Generally I’d say the view is people are happier when their preferences are met, with preferences being revealed by behavior.

Like, if I always pick chocolate ice cream it shows I prefer it to vanilla. Others may pick vanilla. Or not pick ice cream at all. Preferences vary. This is a pretty key thing to always have in mind. I benefit from being free to pursue my preferences. I do not benefit when other’s preferences are forced on me.

You are correct that sometimes one individual's happiness may conflict with another’s. Most libertarians believe in rules that govern these situations. For example, you may derive great happiness from the money in my wallet, but libertarians would generally argue that the world will be happier if we clearly define the money in my wallet as mine and you may not have take it without my consent. (Libertarians are not unique in this regard...)

So, there are ways I am allowed to make you unhappy. I can make you unhappy by using the money in my wallet to buy myself chocolate ice cream even if it pisses you off. Your unhappiness with respect to my money doesn’t necessarily matter. Because overall the world will be happier if we arrange our rules that way. The average person will be able to achieve more of their preferences. Now, of course, one of the things I am free to do with my money is give it to you to make you happy. If this makes me happy. Or maybe you provide some good or perform some service that makes me happy to get some of it.

So, I wouldn’t go as far as saying “property” is “happiness”, but if you want some of my property is is beholden on you to make me happy enough to get it. And vice-versa.

diz:

So, you're measuring happiness in utilitarian metrics. Then doesn't it make sense that if "your" property can make more people happy through redistribution of income/wealth, then that is the higher goal/good and thus confiscation of the property for the collective happiness delivers more justice? This is the utilitarian trap which early utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill fell into. Terms like justice, happiness and utility can easily be used to rationalise the greater good of the collective at the expense of the individual's good.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
diz:

So, you're measuring happiness in utilitarian metrics. Then doesn't it make sense that if "your" property can make more people happy through redistribution of income/wealth, then that is the higher goal/good and thus confiscation of the property for the collective happiness delivers more justice? This is the utilitarian trap which early utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill fell into. Terms like justice, happiness and utility can easily be used to rationalise the greater good of the collective at the expense of the individual's good.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Yeah, I’m more of a "rule utilitarian”. I don’t think ad hoc measures to attempt to maximize collective utility are practical or even possible. Utility is individual and subjective. I have no way of knowing how much more or less you would enjoy an apple than I would. However, I do think it makes sense to order society with rules that tend to result in more people’s standard of living being higher. Property rights (e.g., I have a means by which this apple becomes mine - like I acquired the land and planted the tree on which it grew) and mutually voluntary transactions (i.e., if you want my apple more than me you should be able to offer me a price for it I would be willing to accept) are the sorts of rules that I think have shown the most effectiveness in achieving this.
 
Back
Top Bottom